I can think of a location that would be an ideal location to test a battery electric with charging located on loco. How about 2 or 3 in service at Washington Union station. Mostly would use the 25 Hz overhead but able to go in and out of non CAT locations such as certain non overhead tracks and inside repair facilities. Sure would decrease diesel noise from switchers.
The problem with HSR is that it won't service people in 'fly over' communities and it won't be completed yesterday. It will only provide transportation for either the 'hoi poili' or 'the snobs' depending upon one's point of view.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD The problem with HSR is that it won't service people in 'fly over' communities and it won't be completed yesterday. It will only provide transportation for either the 'hoi poili' or 'the snobs' depending upon one's point of view.
I guess I don't "get" what is being said in this post.
The California HSR will, at least initially, provide service to the Inland Empire region. This is the California version of "fly over" communities -- the "snobs" have the financial wherewithal to live in Coastal California that has much higher real estate prices. At least one person here on the Forum has expressed that sending the line through the Central Valley is not an optimal solution, but it may eventually have the effect of bringing economic improvement into a less economically flush part of California having more land for development?
True, it won't be "completed yesterday." Most people understand that big projects take time. But it won't be completed today, tomorrow, some number of days after tomorrow or even many, many days after tomorrow.
I guess we can thank Ralph Nader for that, the idea that attorneys working in the "public interest" can "empower ordinary citizens" into not having their rights trampled.
The same thing is happening to nuclear power, which is a low-carbon energy source, but try to get a new nuclear plant built, even of one of the improved, safer designs.
So once again, what is the meaning and purpose of those remarks? Is it to say that the reasons offered by skeptics of the California HSR are specious and narrowly focused? That we "lack the political will" to build such a thing?
California, apparently, has the political will to build HSR, and no one in Sacramento is listening to people arguing against it because it serves either "the slobs" or the "snobs" or that it will take too long.
The facts on the ground are that it is taking much, much longer than promised, it is being built out first in the portion of the state where there is the least resistance to construction along with the least immediate need for it, and it looks to be costing multiples of some of the early optimistic promises. A certain presidential administration withholding a billion dollars from it that the current administration has stopped withholding is a mere pimple on the backside of this thing.
So, just what are you trying to tell us, here?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic So, just what are you trying to tell us, here?
In the days when railroads were built from scratch - each community wanted to be on the railroad so they could enhance the business position of each of the town's businesses - every town was sure they would share in the benefits of the railroad.
With HSR - the ones that are expected to benefit are nominally the end points. The intermediate points don't figure to be serviced as then the route would no long be HS - just R and Amtrak is just R. The only thing the intermediate locations get is all the dislocation and disturbances from construction - and the construction won't even employ local labor.
The economically disadvataged view it all as some form of 'play toy' of those that have more economic advantages - but no enough advantage so as to be flying either commercial or private or using a personal vehicle between Home and the ultimate destination which is not a either the HSR Station or Airport.
Creating enemies as you go is a tough way to complete a project.
YoHo1975NIMBYISM is part of why the CA HSR project started out in the Central Valley when there would have been better intermediate routes to be had.
I was under the impression that the main reason for starting construction in the Central Valey was that it was the cheapest construction. The Central Valley is the largest piece of flat terrain west of the Mississippi/Missouri river valleys.
The one serious alternative to the Highway 99 corridor was the I-5 corridor with a much lower population density.
The California Bullet train to nowhere is an $100B experiment. A 200 mph interurban and a form of public transit, to replace interurbans that Amtrak shed decades ago. In its second decade of government handouts, there is no outcry about it not being built, only outcry for the money spent. And promises of $34 train fares competing against $49 airfares...all will not be lost, Joe Biden would gladly commute in it...
BaltACD Paul Milenkovic So, just what are you trying to tell us, here? In the days when railroads were built from scratch - each community wanted to be on the railroad so they could enhance the business position of each of the town's businesses - every town was sure they would share in the benefits of the railroad. With HSR - the ones that are expected to benefit are nominally the end points. The intermediate points don't figure to be serviced as then the route would no long be HS - just R and Amtrak is just R. The only thing the intermediate locations get is all the dislocation and disturbances from construction - and the construction won't even employ local labor. The economically disadvataged view it all as some form of 'play toy' of those that have more economic advantages - but no enough advantage so as to be flying either commercial or private or using a personal vehicle between Home and the ultimate destination which is not a either the HSR Station or Airport. Creating enemies as you go is a tough way to complete a project.
Thank you for clarifying.
Except this is not true, Those central valley communities will have stations and will in the near term have significantly improved access to the East Bay and to Sacramento. The San Joanquins exist and do fairly well. So this is a direct improvement to that. Those stations don't suddenly melt away. There is already a service here that HSR just improves.
Erik_Mag YoHo1975 NIMBYISM is part of why the CA HSR project started out in the Central Valley when there would have been better intermediate routes to be had. I was under the impression that the main reason for starting construction in the Central Valey was that it was the cheapest construction. The Central Valley is the largest piece of flat terrain west of the Mississippi/Missouri river valleys. The one serious alternative to the Highway 99 corridor was the I-5 corridor with a much lower population density.
YoHo1975 NIMBYISM is part of why the CA HSR project started out in the Central Valley when there would have been better intermediate routes to be had.
While the mountains are the major impediment. The primary reason they didn't start in the Bay area where HSR could have done immediate good, was NIMBYism. That is Also the problem in the LA Basin. The mountain while expensive are actually an easy problem to solve. Having nowhere to connect to on the other side of the portal, because of pushback is why they started in the Central Valley.
The real "good" would have been providing fast commuter service between the Central Valley and "Silicon Valley", especially if the East Bay BART line was extended to the San Jose station.
OTOH, I would have liked to see even 10% of the HSR money spent on improving service on the LOSSAN corridor.
This is what America (or at least a certain segment of the population) is now: individual liberty without civic consciousness. If it doesn't fit someone's narrowly-defined self interest, then it's not worth doing. If this mentality continues, it's going to turn us into a 3rd world country.
BaltACDWith HSR - the ones that are expected to benefit are nominally the end points. The intermediate points don't figure to be serviced as then the route would no long be HS - just R and Amtrak is just R.
HSR routes in other countries have intermediate stops at major population nodes en route. HSR makes little sense here between the Mississippi River and the Sierra Nevada except for TX and AZ because of low population density.
charlie hebdoHSR routes in other countries have intermediate stops at major population nodes en route. HSR makes little sense here between the Mississippi River and the Sierra Nevada except for TX and AZ because of low population density.
It can, and probably will, be argued that low-boom SSTs are a better 'network' than HSR to accomplish this, and that case can be made just as effectively as it was for turbine aircraft in the second wave of the end of the American passenger train. But for any corridor or service that benefits from end-to-end HSR, optimizing access to what may in fact be 'invented' intermediate stops (and I'd argue that very few cities actually want the high-speed infrastructure through them as opposed to convenient to them) ought to be an important component of development.
Game has changed again. WABTEC has signed a MOU with General Motors to adapt the GM Ultium battery and HydroTec fuel cells to the FLXdrive and its hybrid consist.
That's just funny on the face of it. The former GE Transportation is getting Batteries from the former owner of EMD.
GE Makes Grid storage solutions. Maybe they partner up with EMD. :D
Overmod charlie hebdo HSR routes in other countries have intermediate stops at major population nodes en route. HSR makes little sense here between the Mississippi River and the Sierra Nevada except for TX and AZ because of low population density. I would argue that it makes immense sense to have long-distance HSR with required widely-spaced stops IF those stops can be fed with an organized regional system -- which could easily be augmented by electric air -- that serves the disseminated population. It can, and probably will, be argued that low-boom SSTs are a better 'network' than HSR to accomplish this, and that case can be made just as effectively as it was for turbine aircraft in the second wave of the end of the American passenger train. But for any corridor or service that benefits from end-to-end HSR, optimizing access to what may in fact be 'invented' intermediate stops (and I'd argue that very few cities actually want the high-speed infrastructure through them as opposed to convenient to them) ought to be an important component of development.
charlie hebdo HSR routes in other countries have intermediate stops at major population nodes en route. HSR makes little sense here between the Mississippi River and the Sierra Nevada except for TX and AZ because of low population density.
I would argue that it makes immense sense to have long-distance HSR with required widely-spaced stops IF those stops can be fed with an organized regional system -- which could easily be augmented by electric air -- that serves the disseminated population.
I have a hard time seeing a "west of the Mississippi" end to end HSR route that makes sense. There are potential regional systems that could be strung together. I could also imagine say Reno to SLC being an HSR line with a more conventional speed route over the Sierras. At least temporarily.
Similarly, I think a Las Vegas to LA train really does make sense. It's just a chicken and Egg problem getting it built, but if you could go HSR from the high desert into Sin City and conventional into the Basin it could work. Especially if you offer a premium experince as a part of it. (maybe not easy for Amtrak to do.)
There's also interesting things that could happen if certain existing freight routes were to get axed. I'm thinking in particular something like the Moffat route which always comes up as tetering on the edge. Maybe just make that an HSR line with very limited freight access ala the NEC. Maybe Tennessee Pass Reopens to give more capacity on that side of the route (hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha)
Obviously such a route would be not be a "string Cantenary and instant HSR" solution, but it would be a right of way and I would presume that once the wires are up and a train running, everything else becomes easier.
And so much for EV mandates... https://www.yahoo.com/news/1-5-electric-vehicle-owners-164149467.html
The California ISO called for EV owners to avoid charging between 5PM and 11PM this evening due tp high demand from the heat wave. I would imagine that there would be calls for electrified RR's to reduce demand during this time period - which sounds like a strong incentive for good sized batteries on electric locomotives.
Erik_Mag The California ISO called for EV owners to avoid charging between 5PM and 11PM this evening due tp high demand from the heat wave. I would imagine that there would be calls for electrified RR's to reduce demand during this time period - which sounds like a strong incentive for good sized batteries on electric locomotives.
Former Car MaintainerElectrified Railways such as BART have agreements to keep power on regardless of load shedding
I was thinking more along the lines of electrified freight RR's, though I would imagine that the likes of BART and other elecrtified transit operations may be asked to reduce power consumption. For a number of years, the Milwaukee Coast electrification was hut down between 5PM and 6PM in wintertime as the rates were based on power draw during that time.
EV firefighting infrastructure? Took seven hours and 28,000 gallons of water to extinguish a Battery Powered Automobile. What will it take to extinguish large scale EV freight locomotive fires in an urban setting? https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-regulators-warn-risks-firefighters-100612424.html
Former Car MaintainerEV firefighting infrastructure? Took seven hours and 28,000 gallons of water to extinguish a Battery Powered Automobile. What will it take to extinguish large scale EV freight locomotive fires in an urban setting? https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-regulators-warn-risks-firefighters-100612424.html
I have maintained repeatedly that it is the responsibility of Musk et al. and their companies to arrange training and training materials, and underwrite the cost of much of the special equipment, needed for first response to these things. Gas blanketing, nonreactive foam, vacuum sarcophagus... all these things should be paid out of the profit for foisting the things on the public in the first place.
I think were we are going is a partial cat system were we have duel use locos that can run on wire,battery and hydrogen
Responsible behavior from Elon Musk?? Surely you jest. Like many "visionaries", he has little respect for more pragmatic types who don't jump onto his bandwagon wholeheartedly or expect him to abide by the laws of the land.
ronrunnerI think where we are going is a partial cat system where we have dual use locos that can run on wire, battery and hydrogen
Overmod Former Car Maintainer EV firefighting infrastructure? Took seven hours and 28,000 gallons of water to extinguish a Battery Powered Automobile. What will it take to extinguish large scale EV freight locomotive fires in an urban setting? https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-regulators-warn-risks-firefighters-100612424.html it takes Megantic-style ignorance to spray water on a lithium fire in the first place. Let alone if in a highly energized state... I have maintained repeatedly that it is the responsibility of Musk et al. and their companies to arrange training and training materials, and underwrite the cost of much of the special equipment, needed for first response to these things. Gas blanketing, nonreactive foam, vacuum sarcophagus... all these things should be paid out of the profit for foisting the things on the public in the first place.
Former Car Maintainer EV firefighting infrastructure? Took seven hours and 28,000 gallons of water to extinguish a Battery Powered Automobile. What will it take to extinguish large scale EV freight locomotive fires in an urban setting? https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-regulators-warn-risks-firefighters-100612424.html
it takes Megantic-style ignorance to spray water on a lithium fire in the first place. Let alone if in a highly energized state...
My understanding is that there is not that much lithium in a lithium battery, and the lithium is not in metalic form -- it is either chemically bound to something or it is "intercalated" in a graphite electrode.
I get what you are saying about not pouring water on this highly reactive metal. As to why fire fighters are pouring large amounts of water on lithium battery car fires, I think there must be some opinion among people who think about such things that you just keep pouring water until the fire, some hours later, is under control. There have been enough instances of fire fighting teams doing that so I don't think this is a spur-of-the-moment decision of a fire chief not knowing what to tell his personnel?
The other side of this is the smart alecs on the TSLA page of the Seeking Alpha investment site who know everything about how EVs are positively perfect in every way, and any time anyone brings up EV battery fires, the response is "what about the many more gasoline car fires that never make the news."
Indeed, what about them? I don't think the fire brigade needs to spend hours pouring water on them, and somehow I don't think there is such a thick chemically laden smoke containing exotic materials as with a battery.
I agree that there might be a better response to those fire and you-know-who (and in turn customers of his product) should finance it. But I am not sure the pouring on of water over 7 hours is done out of ignorance -- it might be the best thing to do under current technology.
For example, I don't see how gas banketing or nonreactive foam, things that cut off the supply of air help. I am thinking that these batteries contain their own fuel and oxidizer, they are just going to burn, and you need to pour water on them for cooling until all of the reactive elements burn themselves out?
The Detroit Free Press newspaper has an article confirming my suspicions
Electric car battery fires: How firefighters keep up with tech (freep.com)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.